I'm wondering whether this new legislation will make an actual difference in the legal ability to carry a weapon.
Judging by the fact that almost every business in this region already has "We don't care if you die!" signs posted, I'll bet it won't.
Asking someone to "prove" that liberty is better than the alternative is like asking someone to "prove" that not being sawed into pieces while alive and conscious of what is happening is better than suffering that fate. If someone can't understand the "why" of it, you probably won't be able to prove it to them.
The thing is, when the anti-gun side says the same thing over and over like a recording, what else can you say in response? Each lie is going to elicit the same response it always elicits. For each and every lie, there is a truthful response. I mean, how else can you respond to the claim that the Earth is flat other than by pointing out how you (and they) can know it isn't? You don't start talking about the kinds of cat food you recommend, because it is irrelevant to the topic.
The anti-gun bigots have their list of ways they want you violated. They whip out whichever "solution" they feel fits the situation the best (which sometimes leads to comedy when they pull out the wrong one because of their festering ignorance).
The "solutions" they demand have always failed in the past. They are failing now. They'll continue to fail into the future each and every time they are tried. That's because they aren't really intended to stop shootings. They are intended to make sure you can't defend yourself from shooters by shooting back. They may even be intended to enslave you.
Their "solutions" certainly work to protect the evil losers who murder. Maybe this is because the shooters are a protected class-- it's probably no coincidence that aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- legislation and guns-- against the innocent) empathize with aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- guns, knives, etc.-- against the innocent). They are birds of a feather. Oh, sure, the murderers are demonized, but only in words. The actions taken in response-- to blame people who didn't do it and look for more ways to hurt them-- speak louder than the disingenuous words.
A "gun-free" zone will only be "gun-free" until some evil loser wants to take a gun in there to kill people. To allow (or require) him to face no opposition is evil.
Kids who have been intentionally kept ignorant of guns-- and the ethical imperative of zero archation-- will get ahold of guns and will likely harm someone. Demanding that kids, therefore, be kept even more ignorant of guns, under threat of punishment, will only make matters worse.
A ban on certain kinds of guns-- based on looks or even on functionality-- will only change the weapons used, not save lives. Do these people really imagine it's less bad to be killed with Gun B than with Gun A... or with Tool C? What kind of stupidity is that?
Background checks will not catch the actual bad guys, but will keep good people who want to obey illegitimate legislation from acquiring the proper tools to defend life, liberty, and property.
Whichever type of weapon is used, it will be presented as too dangerous to allow common people-- anyone who isn't an armed government employee-- to possess. If the weapons weren't dangerous, there would be no point to them. Bad guys respond to danger to their lives and bodily integrity, but not to appeals to their humanity.
You can ignore these anti-gun monsters if you want. Their bad opinions don't affect your rights even a little, but can affect how dangerous it is to exercise your rights. Responding to them probably won't change the course of society as it becomes less and less social and more political. But sometimes you just can't sit quietly while someone is telling lies that are going to hurt people. So, the same old things will be said in response to the same old lies they keep parroting.
If someone says "we" when talking about something the government or "country" did, or says "my" (or worse: "our" or "your") when referring to government or some government agency or agent, my opinion of their intelligence usually plunges-- unless I believe they are using those words sarcastically. If I'm feeling less generous, it may only affect my view of their ethics... by making me decide they have none.
I already knew he's a government-supremacist and as such can't be trusted. Did anyone not know this?
The government-supremacists who are right-statists are celebrating the emails, saying they show he was lying all along.
The government-supremacists who are left-statists are either ignoring the emails, or are saying they see nothing incriminating in them.
So, just more of the same from all those people who put politics over truth. They can be ignored since they can't think outside their box and add nothing to what is known.
Government-supremacists see nothing wrong with lying (or killing) to prop up the state-- at least the kind of state they want. To them, it's for the "greater good".
This hasn't changed in my lifetime and I doubt it ever will.
Even if there were nothing in those emails I would disagree with, and no politics disguised as "science" for the gullible, I still don't trust Fauci. It's not about one thing he said or did, it's about his approach to life. His actions show he places the collective State above the good of individuals. Of course, he'll frame this as the collective State being good for individuals.
Instead of saying "There's a new cold virus, it seems to be slightly more dangerous than others, and here are some things you might consider doing to protect yourself, but we really don't know much for sure yet", he went all ... well, government-supremacist... on society. Advocating mandates and rules; encouraging using government violence against those who didn't do what he thought they should-- or at least giving rulers the excuses they needed to do those things without any pushback from him.
Now some are saying the emails are new evidence he lied to get the response he wanted to the narrative he was selling, and that he did other wrong things, too.
Would it be surprising to find out he did? Not to me. He's political, and ALL politics-- all statism-- is based on lies and doing wrong. Why would this be the exception?
Why would I read through lots of someone's emails-- or see someone else's biased (that's not a criticism, just reality) interpretation of them-- to find out that nothing in them is going to make a difference to me one way or the other?
But that's just me. Others may be more interested and might have good reasons to be. If you want to read through those emails and tell me your impression, go ahead. Maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe there's something in there that you'll find and think I should know because it might change my mind and how I live my life. Stranger things have happened.
But maybe government is.
Government employees have to know their power and position are illegitimate. They'll deny it, but this is where the paranoia comes from. If they weren't so paranoid I might think they actually believed their own lies.
It's why they spy on us so thoroughly. On our emails, our online activity, our snail-mail, our phone calls, our credit card purchases, our guns, our health status, our location, etc. It's why they infiltrate other groups.
It's not to keep us safe; it's to keep their unearned power safe.
I'm not saying their paranoia is unjustified. If you're a criminal gang, you probably ought to be paranoid. Someone probably really is out to get you. The crown rests uneasy, and sometimes, the head that wears the crown rests uneasily on the neck, too. I just can't get too worked up when bad guys' paranoia turns out to have been justified. Death to tyrants.
I would rather not catch Covid and die-- or have lasting effects.
I would rather not get "the jab" and have a reaction and die-- or have lasting effects.
But, for some reason, and I know it's not rational, I would rather take my chances with the virus.
At this point, I would feel dumber for getting "the jab" and having a bad reaction (since I feel it's something I shouldn't do) than if I caught the virus naturally (assuming there's anything natural about this virus).
I was exposed, intensely, several times during the first year of the virus. Now, I feel (and I could be wrong) that I either had some natural genetic immunity to it or caught Covid and didn't know and developed some immunity that way. I have seen nothing to convince me that immunity (if any) conferred by "the jab" is superior to natural immunity.
I'm not the slightest bit worried about catching Covid, and certainly not of catching it and having a serious problem from it. The only person I know personally with lingering ill-effects from Covid has never been what I would consider a healthy person. And I know others, personally, who caught it and recovered with no ill effects even though they were riddled with co-morbidities.
If I got "the jab" now and had a bad reaction it would feel like I took an unnecessary risk. A dumb risk. Almost like I was asking for trouble.
Why fiddle with what seems to have worked? If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.
--
A friend-of-a-friend in California (I'm making an educated guess that she's a radical left-statist) is still so terrified of Covid that she won't stop masking, has been fully "jabbed", still avoids people, and is skipping an important (to her) memorial service (a Covid-delayed funeral) due to her terror.
If you ask me-- and you didn't-- this is evidence of psychological abuse. Who is to blame? Politicians, her politics, the media she consumes, society, or some combination?
I wish someone had the guts to try to deprogram her and give her back her life. If I knew her, I would try. But sometimes you get what you v*te for.
The two remaining opinion columnists are solidly "conservative".
Reading their columns, you'd think the only real problem with America is that "liberals" exist.
They are quick to list their gripes, and blame them all on "liberal" politicians (or those they've influenced). It all because "we" aren't tough enough on "crime". They can't see that "their side" is just as bad for liberty.
They beat around the bush when discussing their problems with government, but they avoid the core issues and avoid mentioning anything like an actual solution beyond more government violence. Why? Because you can't solve problems caused by too much politics by bringing in more politics. Especially not with more authoritarian politics. And they apparently love politics as long as "their side" has the upper hand. They don't want to stop using the political means against others. Solving problems is less important.
So they'll never do anything other than carefully avoid a solution to the things they complain about. And continue to hallucinate that it's only "liberals" making the mess. If only everyone would lick the boots of the police and the military, enforce all the right "laws", go to the right kind of church, never use any intoxicants that are "illegal", etc., America would be all better again. A nice, quiet, police state where they get the kind of government over others that they like, while their enemies plot how to turn it against them in the future.
They plow around the stump in their field, even as it grows larger, because to get rid of it entirely would take away their option to use it against someone else, later. And sticking it to the "liberals" is more important to them than is living in liberty.
Years ago I saw L. Neil Smith call the issue of "guns" an X-ray into a politician's mind. You can tell how much it (the proper pronoun for a politician) respects all your rights by how much it (the politician in question) respects your right to own and to carry weapons. I've never seen that fall too far from the truth.
Even "pro-gun" politicians are universally against getting government completely out of your holster, and they are all in favor of violating other natural human rights, too. Absolute scum.
I wish a day would come when I didn't feel the need to ever blog about guns again. A day when no one was out there scheming against this natural human right. If this happened, I'll bet your other rights would be a lot safer, too.
My computer developed a near-fatal problem overnight. It says it can't find a "wireless device" anymore. I am writing this sitting in the hall, connected to an ethernet cable-- completely blocking the hall so no one larger than a cat can pass unless I get out of the way. This isn't going to work for anyone-- except the cats.
I may try to find longer ethernet cables, or connectors so I can make a cable long enough to at least get out of the hall.
I can post in a limited way from my phone.
Until/unless I can get this solved, I may be mostly limited to posting "Blips".
This is going to be a huge problem for writing my columns.
If anyone wants to chip in so I can afford more options to fix this, I'd appreciate it (my birthday is coming up in a few weeks, so you could just call it a birthday gift). If not, that's fine. I'll survive.
UPDATE: Thanks for the help. I am up and "running" again. (And thanks to scheduling posts ahead, I didn't even miss one this morning!)
.
I looked for a photograph to show what I saw at Albuquerque's Coronado Park and vicinity since I forgot to take one myself, but all of them looked a lot less horrible than what I witnessed this time. Does this mean it's getting worse? So I used a picture I took of the best thing to see in ABQ.
My feelings on homelessness are mixed.
I was homeless for a short time nearly 20 years ago. Instead of hanging out in a city park looking for handouts and doing drugs, I lived out of my car, in the woods, visiting a small town park daily for tap water and an electrical outlet. Wilderness survival skills are great, even when you aren't exactly in the wilderness, but staying "acceptable" for polite society sometimes requires a little more. If I'd been anywhere near a part of the world I cared to stay in, I probably wouldn't have bothered making the effort to stay "civilized" but would have just walked off with what I could carry.
I'm not sure if I was trespassing while homeless-- I didn't cross any fences nor did I see any signs, but I may have been. Either way, I took great care to not make a mess or damage the property-- or to even leave any sign I had ever been there when I left. Then, as soon as I could (I had a job the whole time) I got myself out of the worst of that situation. Almost an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situation, but here I am.
So I do have empathy for the homeless.
I can't imagine choosing to stay in a city once you become homeless. But then, I'm not a city person. I suppose those who are can't imagine abandoning that familiar landscape for the woods.
The homeless situation in Albuquerque is a whole other mess. And, yes, "mess" is literally what I mean. The way most of them behave, you can tell addiction or other types of mental illness are a major part of the problem, not just a lack of a job or a house.
I saw very few women among the homeless in ABQ. That might mean they gathered elsewhere, or dressed to blend in with the men, or were inside their makeshift shelters and tents. But maybe women have more opportunities for getting help, or are more likely to accept help than are men. Or maybe I just wasn't observant enough to see the women right in front of me.
This time, none of them approached me to ask for handouts. That was different. They also seemed to be more contained at the park than in previous visits-- whether by their own choice or some other factor.
As long as they aren't trespassing or damaging private property, nor aggressively demanding handouts or robbing others, I don't have an issue with leaving them alone to live as they prefer. Even in a city park.
But the mess they create doesn't stay put, and a chainlink fence doesn't solve it. I hate the litter and filth that I see the homeless in ABQ causing. They sure don't seem to mind making the world filthier for the rest of us. I can't even begin to understand this.
Litter is a private property violation, no matter who does it or where. It doesn't stay put but blows in the wind. You can't litter without violating the rights of others. No matter who you are.
There's nothing about being homeless that requires you to be irresponsible; to litter and mess up things. But, among these ABQ homeless, I don't see responsible behavior. I see lots of irresponsible behavior. Of course, as with everyone, the bad ones get all the attention... if there are any good ones in the background. Maybe the responsible ones are all out in the woods.
